P. 1


|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Navneet Garg

More info:

Published by: Navneet Garg on Mar 21, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





A Shoelace-Based QoS Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks Using Directional Antenna

† Department ∗ Department

Yuh-Shyan Chen∗, Shin-Jr Jan†, and Ming-Chin Chuang

of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taipei University, R.O.C. of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Chung Cheng University, R.O.C. show the overall improvement in throughput using directional antenna. Ueda et al. [8] used the notion of zone-disjoint routes to avoid the contention between high and low priority routes by reserving high priority zone of communication. The primary objective is to devise a priority based routing scheme, which will protect the high priority flows from the contention caused by the low priority flows. Above-mentioned researches [7][8] use uni-path scheme. If the network environment is strictly limited, the QoS routing path will fail. This paper provides a dynamic routing path, which is depended on network environment. The main features of our shoelace-based routing protocol are summarized as follows: (1) the shoelace-based routing protocol produces cross link which can simultaneously transmit data without any data interference; (2) our routing protocol employs the concept of multi-path to achieve QoS requirement when the network bandwidth is strictly limited; (3) the shoelace-based protocol offers a higher success rate to achieve the QoS requirement. This paper assumes that nodes are capable of determining the directional at which a neighbor is located by using one of the techniques proposed in [3]. In particular, our proposed scheme can be directly applied to most existing routing protocols. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the system model and basic idea. Our proposed shoelace-based QoS routing protocol is presented in Section III. The simulation results are examined in Section IV. Finally, Section V concludes this paper. II. S YSTEM MODEL AND BASIC IDEA This paper mainly introduces a special multi-path structure from the source to the destination which satisfies the bandwidth requirement. The multi-path inherits the advantage of a high success rate of searching for a QoS route and the robust and reliable mechanisms. The network model assumptions are as follows. The MAC sub-layer in our model is implemented by using the CDMA-over-TDMA channel model [4]. There are many advantages in CDMA-over-TDMA channel model, such as multiple sessions can share a common TDMA time slot via CDMA, and overcome a hidden-terminal problem. The bandwidth requirement is realized by reserving time slots on links. Under such a model, the use of a time slot on a link is only dependent on the status of its neighboring links. Fig. 1 illustrates that an area around the node is covered by M sectors [3]. We assume that the sectors are not overlapping. We number the sectors from 1 to M starting from the sector that

Abstract— This paper proposes a new QoS routing protocol for mobile ad hoc network (MANET) using directional antenna. The scheme offers a bandwidth-based routing protocol for QoS support in MANET using the concept of multi-path. Our MAC sub-layer adopts the CDMA-over-TDMA channel model. The QoS on-demand routing protocol determines the end-to-end bandwidth calculation and bandwidth allocation from a source node to a destination node. The paths are combined with multiple cross links, called as shoelace, when the network bandwidth is strictly limited. Due to the directional antenna property, these cross links can simultaneously transmit data without any data interference. This investigation develops a shoelace-based QoS on-demand routing protocol by identifying shoelaces in MANET to more easily construct a QoS route which satisfied the bandwidth requirement. Finally, simulation results demonstrate the better performance in our proposed routing protocol.

I. I NTRODUCTION A mobile ad hoc network is a group of wireless nodes that dynamically formed a network without the use of any existing network infrastructure. Nodes cooperate to forward packets with each other so that a node can communicate with another node by multi-hop. In a MANET, host mobility can cause frequently unpredictable topology changes, thus the design of a QoS routing protocol is more complicated than traditional networks. Some works has recently intensively studied QoS issues in MANETs [1][2]. These QoS routing protocols use the omnidirectional antennas to transmit the data. If nodes use omnidirectional antennas to transmit, the node generates unnecessary interference to other nodes thereby reduces the network capacity. Recently, there are some existing MANET routing protocols with directional antennas [5][6]. With directional transmission both transmission range and spatial reuse can be substantially enhanced by having nodes concentrate transmitted energy only towards their destination’s direction, thereby achieving higher success rate. The use of directional antenna in the context of MANETs can largely reduce the radio interference, thereby improving the utilization of wireless medium and consequently the network performance. However, these routing protocols [5][6] for MANETs with directional antenna don’t provide the QoS function. Saha et al. [7] proposed a scheme for supporting priority-based QoS in MANETs by classifying the traffic flows in the network into different priority classes. The paper has adopted a control-theoretic approach to adaptively control the low-priority flows so as to maintain the high priority flowrates at their desired level. Then, they modified the scheme to

m and j= 1. R5. 6.. Fig.RSF[G. where the message lifetime is two-hop. 3. But the shoelace-based routing protocol can reduce this situation. where 1 < i < m. 14. 3 illustrates the calculating result. R4. • SF[i. . By using directional antenna. a QoS path is requested between nodes B to H which satisfies a bandwidth requirement Br .RSF[E. . 12.{2. Since the MAC layer adopts CDMA-over-TDMA model. j] : a set of available share free time slots of nodes i and j. • ASF[i. ASF[i. hm kn where m. Let α . Time slots reserved on link hi kj and hi kj must be differed. . spatial reuse. After calculating. When the network bandwidth is strictly limited. i] .. The time slots reservation procedure is performing after collecting the link-state information for   h1 k1   h2 k2   β  denote a all nodes in the MANET. . R3. 8. . F] . where i= 1. .RSF[y. H] .RSF[H. 12. .   . 2. Therefore the actual bandwidth is |RSF |. where 1 < i < m. Fig. some symbol is defined as follows. the bandwidth in time slotted network is represented by amount of free time slots. n > 1. Examples of different QoS situations is located just right of the 3 o’clock position. the node B finds more sub-paths between B and H and the total bandwidth of sub-paths is equal to Br . j] . the time slots reservation of routing path has the following rules.. 15}={4. S HOELACE . . j]: a set of reserved share free time slots of nodes i and j. each node periodically broadcasts the hello message. 4 . and saving power.Omnimode coverage area Directional mode coverage area C 6 10 E 6 7 10 12 2 3 6 9 10 13 14 15 . the cross links CF and GE transmit data using the same time slots {2. each node acquires two-hop neighboring information. 5} without interfering each other. This situation results the routing procedure fail. 10. but the bandwidth of next hop is insufficient (BCH + BGH < Br ).RSF[ C. n.  . 13. . Time slots reserved on link αh i and hi kj must be differed.   . To calculate reserved time slots between two nodes. Using directional antenna will bring about many benefits.BASED Q O S ROUTING PROTOCOL A. For example. 1 < j < n. . 6. Because this paper uses directional antenna. F] .   h1 k1  h2 k2    Give a group of one-hop neighboring node. 9. Time slots reserved on link h i kj and kj β must be differed. . the proposed employed fewer nodes and then found more paths to achieve a QoS path. H]={2. In the Fig. H]=SF[F. The total bandwidth of all links between nodes hi and kj is equal to Br . Fig. 4. 12} . Time slots reserved on all links kj β must be differed. j] = F[i] ∩ F[j]. 5}-{ 6}-{6. j] = SF[i. SF[i. • F[i]: a set of free time slots of node i. R1. • RSF[i.. the link hi kj+1 and hi+1 kj . Afterward. 8. 8.RSF[x. when the network bandwidth is sufficient. 1. j] where x is node i other neighbors and y is node j other neighbors. R2.. 14}. RSF[F. we uses the shoelace-based routing protocol. Phase I: Time slots reservation In MANET. In addition. 3 2 Identifying of shoelace and link reserved time slots Fig. each node decides the reserved time slots with its neighbors. Time slots reserved on all links αh i must be differed. . for example. 8. This paper employs these benefits to achieve QoS routing protocol. 1 < j < n. enhancing transmission range. SF[F. 2(c) displays the concept of shoelace path. 7. M-1 2 3 5 7 8 10 15 1 6 8 11 2 5 11 A M B 2 5 10 3 6 9 13 H 2 4 6 7 8 9 12 14 K G 1 6 9 F Fig. . j]: a set of share free time slots of nodes i and j. if the actual network bandwidth BBH between nodes B and H is less Br (BBH <Br ). 14} {2. the total actual bandwidth BBC and BBG is equal to the bandwidth Br . 2(a) shows that it only provides a uni-path routing. Because the message lifetime is two-hop. 9}.. 9. our routing protocol can find more nodes to satisfy the bandwidth requirement. where 1 < i < m. In this paper. 3. 7. H]={4. Definition : Shoelace path: Consider a pair of neighbor nodes B and H. where i = i’ or j = j’. from a cross link and can use the same time slot to transmit data without interfering with each other. the cross links do not interfere with each other and transmit packet simultaneously. Further. ASF[ F. where 1 < i < n. The more cross links compose the shoelace path. K]={2. 7. A node with M sectors III. H] . 9}. Fig. 2(b). this paper uses |RSF | to denote bandwidth. hm kn shoelace-based sub-path between α and β. 4.

q ≥ 1 such as the bandwidth   k1  . n4 . NL .’s scheme. If the Bn2 n3 is less than Br . D. Now let there be more bandwidth on link n2 h1 . Step 2: when node n3 and ni received the routing packet from node n2 . where i = 1. RSF[n2 . the node hi calculates the RSF[hi . The node n5 and ki update the SL REQ and forward the routing packet to next hop and record the sector ID which nodes n5 and ki uses to connect with next hop and receive from preceding hop.  Letn1 n2  h1 . . ni (n3 ). Then the node n3 and ni updating the SL REQ packet and forward the routing packet to the next hop. hp Br and calculates RSF[n2.. which denotes the through nodes from source to current traversed node. the nodes n5 and ki calculate RSF[n5. The source node initiates a QoS route to a destination and broadcasts the SL REQ packet. h1 ]. . RSF: a list of reserved time slot. the node n2 the updates SL REQ and sends routing packet to notify hi the reserved share free time slots and two hop neighbor information and records the sector ID which node n2 uses to connect with node hi . respectively. the network topology has various form. . The nodes h1 and hi update the SL REQ and forward the routing packet to next hop and record the sector ID which nodes h1 and hi use to connect with next hop and receive from preceding hop. . The mobility speed is from 10 to 50 km/h. the unipath is unsuitable. The multi-path result is used. Case I: when the network bandwidth is sufficient. . x. n4 is equal to Br . kq ki ]. hx ]. . n n  . The routing path appears uni-path result. np ]. The number of time slots is set to be 16.  . RSF[n2 . the node n2 finds other nodes ni . such as the total bandwidth on  h1     . But there are more bandwidth on one or more link. Based on the network environment. Step 3: when the nodes n5 and ki received the routing packet from nodes hi and h1 . The shoelacepath is used and the procedure is described as follows.  on h1 . The numbers .   . the each node detects that the bandwidth between itself and its neighbors is satisfied. Step 1: the node n2 finds other node hi where i = 1. RSF[n2 . . . D: the destination address.  h1  . RSF[n2 . S IMULATION RESULTS This section evaluates our shoelace-based QoS routing protocol. . h2 ]. The node h1 find other node ki . updates the SL REQ (S. A SL REQ packet is denoted as SL REQ (S.  . . This field records reserved time slot between current node and next hop node.  is equal to Br and calculates the . 2 . they respectively calculate RSF with their common neighbor. sometimes some parts of bandwidth are insufficient due to the network bandwidth is strictly insufficient. All these protocols are implemented using the NCTUns 3. 2. The procedure is described as follows: Step 1: give a path [n1 n2 n3 n4 ]. . There are three cases in this paper. TH NEI: the common neighbors of the next hop.. If the shoelace-path fails resulting in the total bandwidth is less than Br . Br : the bandwidth requirement from source to destination. B) and sends routing packet to notify nodes n3 and ni the reserved share free time slots and two hop neighboring n4 information. n1 ]. The node finds more sub-paths such as the total bandwidth is equal to Br . The system parameters are given below. The simulation is run in a 1000x1000 m2 area. n3 ]. Phase II: Shoelace path discovery Each node employs beacon to find neighbors’ location and neighbors’ free time slot using directional antenna and calculates the reserved time slot of link. RSF. . B: the total bandwidth from current current node to its neighbors. n6 ] and RSF[ki .     n2 hx  is equal to x ≥1. p.  is equal to on [n2 h1 ] and calculates RSF[h1. such as the n1  . The maintenance procedure is started to maintain the bandwidth requirement. n2 ]. the destination sends a route reply to source node. hp The front and post of multi-path bandwidth are not satisfied bandwidth requirements. Step 3: node n4 received routing packet from n3 and ni and   n3  n1    the bandwidth on  . the Bn1 n2 is equal to B r and the Bn2 n3 is less then Br . ni ]. n6 ]. 2. . then the preceding hop nodes of the fails or moving node try to search other node to replace the failing or moving node. Saha et al.0 simulator.  total bandwidth on n2 . Br . . The shoelace path is constructed.. NH. Afterward. q. Case II: when the network bandwidth is insufficient. When the destination receives the SL REQ packet. The nodes n3 and ni record the sector ID which they use to connect next hop and receive from preceding hop. RSF[n2. . D. Then node n2 record the sector ID which n2 uses to connect with nodes ni and n3 .’s scheme. TH NEI. n5 ].  ..  . np RSF[n2 ... Step 2: when the node hi received the packet from node n2 . 5 6 . where p ≥ 2 denote multi-path. .   . {[n1 n2 ]}. Phase III: Shoelace path maintenance Each node can move at random leading to the link break. and RSF[n 2 .  where i = 1. C. np Case III: under preceding multi-path network topology. NH: the node which the neighbor of the source and received a SL REQ packet. Br . NL: a list of nodes. The operation is described as follow. . where each field of the packet is defined as follows: S: the source address. Step 4: the node n6 received the routing packet form nodes n5 and ki and the total bandwidth is equal to Br . and Ueda et al. B. B). IV.

The simulation result shown in Fig. flow-control. Tanaka. 88 . May 2005. 4. June 2003. and average latency. Our scheme increasing extra control packets to offer the better results of throughput. The shoelace-based routing is a uni-path if the network bandwidth sufficient and a multi-path if the network bandwidth insufficient. Br (time slots) (c) Fig.5 3 2. November 2004. The simulation result shown in Fig.-R.-W.” Computer Communications. wireless medium utilization. ”A Priority-Based QoS Routing Protocol with Zone Reservation and Adaptive Call Blocking for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks with Directional Antenna. No. Urbana-Champaign. [6] S. Jakllari and L.-H. Sheu and P. pp. Tanaka. E87-B. pp. Bn = 25 %. No.-S. pp. Se = 8 flow−control zone−disjoint shoelace flow−control zone−disjoint shoelace 5.5 4 3. Vol. Ueda and S. Roy and D.4(a) illustrates the throughput. Roy and S. Tassiulas. Korakis and G. These cross links can simultaneously transmit data without any data interference. This is because the zone-disjoint scheme and flow-control scheme only guarantee the QoS requirement of high priority flow. 1. Yassour. Saha and S.5 5 Overhead (packets) 4. The simulation result shown in Fig. ”A Lantern-Tree-Based QoS On-Demand Multicast Protocol for A Wireless Mobile Ad Hoc Network. C ONCLUSION This paper presents a new QoS routing protocol. D. Saha and S. The bandwidth requirement is 1 to 8 time slots. August 1999. Ueda and S. Bandyopadhyay and T. This is because the cross links of the shoelace scheme can simultaneously transmit data on a space without any data interference.437. [7] D. January 2004. Se = 8 10 flow−control zone−disjoint shoelace Wireless medium utilization (%) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 flow−control zone−disjoint shoelace 70 60 50 40 30 20 1 schemes. Annapolis. the low priority flows of zone-disjoint scheme and flow-control scheme easier block flow and reduce flow rate. Our scheme provides a dynamic routing path.4176. Tanaka and S. No. The data rate is 2 Mb/s. throughput. Roy and D. ”QoS Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks. which is depended on network environment. where the MAC sub-layer adapts the CDMAover-TDMA channel model. Annapolis. Then the low priority flows have high average latency resulting in the network latency is higher.Mo = 30 km/h. ”Maximum-Lifetime Routing Algorithms for Networks with Omnidirectional and Directional Antennas. [4] C. When the bandwidth requirement is increasingly. 27-40.” IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). Performance comparisons (d) of sector is 8 and the transmission range is 100 meters. ”An OnDemand Link-State.5 2 1. 717-726. 17. ”A Network-Aware MAC and Routing Protocol for Effective Load Balancing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks with Directional Antenna. 4172 . Our shoelace-based scheme improves the success rate. pp. [2] Y. the shoelace-based protocol is obvious better than others.-C. Orda and B. A. pp.-S. Br (time slots) Bandwidth requirement. [8] T.-A. 426 . B. Control overhead The total numbers of control packets. 4(d) to reflect the control overhead. Paris. Dallas. June 2003. Bandyopadhyay. Br (time slots) Bandwidth requirement. Bn = 25 %. Multi-Path QoS Routing in A Wireless Mobile AdHoc Network. Liu. [3] T. The entirety throughput of network is lower due to other priority flows are not satisfied the QoS requirement. The simulation result of zone-disjoint. Se = 8 100 90 80 Throughput (%) Mo = 30 km/h. Vol. The shoelace-based scheme has a better throughput than other schemes. C.” The 4th ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking and computing. 3. Wireless medium utilization The number of received data packets for all destination hosts divided by the simulation area. The shoelace-based scheme has better average latency than other . Bn = 25 %. Kuo. Ueda and S. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bandwidth requirement. namely shoelace-based QoS routing protocol for MANET using directional antenna.” IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference Workshops.” IEICE Transactions on Communications. pp.” The Fourth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing. Tseng and J. Our approach aims to obtain a more reliable QoS routing result by sacrificing the extra overhead cost.-S.55.97. Br (time slots) (a) Mo = 30 km/h. and shoelace-based protocols is shown in Fig.5 1 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bandwidth requirement. even if the bandwidth requirement is high. Average latency The interval from the time the transmission is initiated to the time the last host finishes its received. 1426 . 4(c) illustrates the average overhead. 8. respectively.1438. 27. R EFERENCES [1] Y. June 2004. pp. 50 . Chen and Y. pp. Bn = 25 %. ”A MAC Protocol for Full Exploitation of Directional Antennas in Ad-Hoc Wireless Networks.-P. [5] A. 7. Vol. This is because when the bandwidth requirement is high. Lin and J. March 2004.” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. Ko. Bandyopadhyay and T. 4(b) illustrates the wireless medium utilization. Chen and Y. Vol. Throughput The number of received data packets for all destination hosts divided by the total number of data packets sent from the source host. The performance results reflect that the shoelace-based scheme presents better performance when the network bandwidth is strictly insufficient.” The 6th ACM international symposium on Mobile ad hoc networking and computing. Se = 8 4000 3500 3000 Average latency (ms) (b) 6 x 10 4 Mo = 30 km/h. ”A Distributed Feedback Control Mechanism for Priority-Based Flow-Rate Control to Support QoS Provisioning in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks with Directional Antenna. 98-107. Saha and S. and average latency. V.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->